High Court · 2025

Petition Under Artrcle 226 of the eonstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe affidavit filbd therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus dectaring proceedings No. MMR/ pERy S I 111 t 16 I 6179 dated 27-11-2016 ot the 3rd respondent herein wherein the petitioner is intimated about the age and date of birth determined. basing on Age Assessment Report and Proceedings of the Apex Medical Bqard of the respondent company dated 29-08-2016 as above 55 years as on t9-og-2016 and confirming the earrier l, i. determination of age and date of bi(h by the company as 25 years as on 01-01- 1986 as illegal, arbitrary, unscientific and contrary to lmplementation lnstructions No.76 dated 25-ll4-1988 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in sen'ice till he attalns the age of Superannuation i.e. 31-0'l-2029, as per his Secondary School certificate dated 06-06-1986, with alt consequential benefits in the in :erest of justice. l.A.NO:1 OF 201'l (WPMP.NO:52 04 0F 20171 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by suspending the impugned procer>dings No.BPtuDORLI OCP-|MO/2016i37 44 dated 24-12-2016 of the 4th respondent herein; issued basing on the report of the Age Assessment Report and Proc'eedings of the Apex Medical Board dated 25-08-2015 of the respondent comtany; pending the disposal of the above main writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the lretitioner : SRI SURENDRA DESAT Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. A.BHAVANt, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR STNGARENI COLLIERIES The Court made the following ORDER o 1 wp_4329_2017 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE AGES H BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITTON o.4329 of 2017 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, as ped the writ affidavit, is that he was bom on 14.06.1969 at Bellampalli village and mandal, Mancherial District, Telangana State, and he joine{ the respondent company on l0- 02-1986 as a Badli Coat Filler and obtained promotion to the post of Lamp Room Attendant, Category V. hlis date of birth has consistently been recorded as l4-06-1969 in all ofticial records including his S.S.C. certificate, medica[ certificates dated 0t.07.1989, 30.04.1990' 10.01.1991, 10.02.1991, 04.02.1q91, 18.03.1991, 06.10-1997, 14.09.2001,04.09.2001, and 16.09.2003, as well as in the Employees Personal Record dated 23.08.2002. H{owever, while applying for the Mining Sardar Examination in 2003. tfis application was rejected due to an alleged discrepancy in his Service Book, where although his date of birth was stated as 14.06. 1969, his agp was recorded as 25 years as on 01.01.1986. He made several oral rdpresentations and had also filed W.P.No.6l4 of 2003, seeking correctflon ol the clericat mistake. This Court, by order dated t 3.08.20 I 5. disppsed ol the writ petition as per the corrmon order dated 31.03.20 l5 in W.P. No.33343 of 2012 and batch, directing the respondent company to pubject the petitioner to scientihc medical examination by a panel of sptlcialists flollowed by review by the Apex Medical Board. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner underwent medical assessment at th€ Company Hospital, Kothagudem, on 12.03.2016 and appearcd befbre thc Apex Medical Board on 29.08.2016, where he submitted his S.S.C. certificate dated 06.06.1986 2 -4129_2O17 NBK, I and other relevant documents; however, the 3'd rcspondent, through proceedings dated 27 .ll.2O16, confirmed the original age determ ination of 25 years as cn 0l.01.1986, thereby dismissing the vatidity of the S.S.C. certificate on the ground that it was obtained after his appointment in the respondent conrpany, and that he would have been a m inor, aged l6 years, at the time of appointment. The petitioner objected to the same stating that prior to tht: amendment to Section 40 of the Mines Rules' 1955, the minimum age for the Badli Coal Filler post was [6 1'ears, and that he appeared for his S.S.C. exams before joining service though the certificate was issued lar.er. He further submits that the Apcx Medical Board proceedings and Age Assessment Report dated 29.08.20 l6 lack transparency, scientific methodology, or disclosure ol any tests such as ossification, raJiological, or skin analysis; and that tlte process violated the company'sr own Executive Instructions datetl 0 I .0tt. I 988 and Implementation Instructions No.76 dated 25.04.1988. It is alleged that the proceedings o1'the respondent authorities in detenrrining is age lacks transparency, and company's stand is inconsistent witlr the precedents set lor other empl,ryees like his elder brothers Eligeti N'lallesh and Eligeti Narasimhulu, whose dates of birth are 13.06.196] and 10.08.1963, respectively, and therefore the proceedings are arltitrary. illcgal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioncr thercfbre prays lor a writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings dated 27. I I .20 l6 and the Age Assessment Report dated 29.08.2016 as illegal arrd secks a direction to the respond()nt company to rectifr his date ol birrh as per the S.S.C. certificate and continue him in service till the supcranuuation date of 3l .01.2029 with all consequential benefits. (') 3 wp _4329_2017 NBK, J

2. Heard Mr. Surendra Desai, learnep counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. A. Bhavani, leamed counsel represfnting Mr. P. Sri Harsha Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for respondept-Singareni Collieries. Perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitiondr contended that the petitioner, Eligeti Sri Ramulu, retired as Lamp Roor;r Attendant, was illegally treated as being over 55 years of age based $n an arbitrary and unscientific assessment, despite his actual date of birth being I 4.06- I 969 as evidenced by a valid SSC certificate issued on 06.05. 1986 and a bonafide certificate dated 25.11.2005 from the Church bf South India High School, Bellampalli. It is contended that the petitioner joined service on 06.02.1986 as a Floating Badli Filler oq a temporary basis when he was only 16 years, 7 months, and 23 days ofd, *hich was permissible under Section 40(2) of the Mines Act, 1952, as he was over 16 years and working under supervision. It is contepded that the petitioner did not submit himself as illiterate during recruitment and was in fact studying in Class X at the time of applying on 0l .ll. 1985' and later appeared for his SSC Examination in March 1986.

4. Further, the initiat age assessment condttcted by the Colliery Medical Officer was not based on any $cientific test and was merely an approximation made on physicat upp"dtu,.t.. without standard medical procedures, and thus the same could not be treated as conclusive for age determination. It is further contended] that thc Apex Medical Board examination dated12.03.2016 was vitiated by procedura[ impropriety, as the petitioner was examined onty by a single unidentified person without 4 -4329_2O17 NBK, ] any supporting test reports being provided, and despite the SSC certificate being found genuine, the Board arbitrarily upheld the previously recorded age. tt is also contended that under JBCCI's Implementation lnstruction No.76 dated 25.04.1988 and the National Coal Wage Agreement-lll, preference is to be given to matriculation certificates for determination of age, and that th,: petitioner's permanent appointment as GeneraI Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.09.1990 vide proceedings dated 11.09.1990, when he was a major and had completed 190 musters, should be treated as the point ol reckoning for age determination, rendering his recorded date of birth as 01.01.1961 inaccurate and unsustainable. It is therefore contended that the impugned proceedings dated27.ll.2016 are arbitrary and illegal.

5. Leamed Standing Counsel for the respondents, basing on the counter aflidavit, contends that the petitioner, at the tirne oljoining the respondent conrpany on 06.02.1986 as a Floating Badli Filler. declarcd h irnself as an illiterate aged 26 years in his application dated 02. I 2. I 98 5 and did not submit any documentary proof of age. and his age was assessed by the Colliery Medical Officer as 25 years as on 01.0 l.l9tt6. which was duly' recorded in the Initial Medical Examination Rcporl. Idcntity and Servlce Card, and B-Register, all of which wcrc acceptcd b1' the petitioner r.r'ithout any objection at that time. It is contcndcd that thc petitioner's subsequent reliance on an SSC certlficate issued on

06.06.1986 claiming his date of birth as 14.06.1969 is irnpennissible. as the said certiflcate was obtained after joining service and would rendcr him a minor aged l6 years at the time of appointment. thereby violating Section 40( I ) ol the Mines Act, 1952, which mandates that no person below l8 years shall be allowed to work in a mine. It is also contended 5 wp_4329_2077 N8K, J that even if the petitioner seeks protection under Section 40(2) of the Mines Act, the initial declaration of beirlg illiterate and the absence of a matriculation certificate at the time of appointment render the subsequent educational credentials legally irrelevant for the purpose of determining age; moreover, in compliance with the dilections of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 33343 of 2012 dated 31.03.2b15, the Apex Medical Board comprising qualified specialists conducted an age determination examination on 12.03.2O16 and opined that the peririoner was above 55 years as on 29.08.2016, which forme[ the basis of the impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2016. It is hlso conrended rhat the said proceedings were issued strictly in dccordance with the JBCCI,s Implementation Instruction No.76 date{ 25.04.t988 and Circular No. P.4914702/IW1270 dated 01.08.1988, bodr of which prescribe thar in the case of illiterate persons, the age recorded ar the time of initial medical examlnation is final and conclusive ffr all service purposcs. It is contended that the petitioner's allegations that the Apex Medical Board did not conduct proper tests or that the pAnel of doctors did not examine him are baseless, and that the medical assessment was conducted in accordance with established norms and u{rder due scicntitic process. It is lurther contended that the petitioner's claim that he becanrc a pennanent employee only on 01.09.1990 as General Mazdoor is mislcading, as his service had already commenced in 1986, {nd thc age recordcd at the time of entry govems retirement and service cgnditions, and the re lbre there is no merit in the writ petition.

6. Leamed Standing Counsel relies dn Tha General lt4anagcr M/s Rarsuct lron Ore Mines v. The Wce President. united Minc.s Mazdoor 6 wp_4329 _2O77 NBK, J Union and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2024),wherein the Supreme Court addressed a dispute conceming an employee's date of birth. [t is submitted that in Ws Barsua lron Ore Mines case, the respondent therein, initially employt:d as a Piece Rated Mazdoor n 1972, declared his age as 24 years withoul specilling the date of birth or documentary proof, and larer, he sought :o change his reoorded date of birth to 12.03.1955, with the support of a School Transfer Certificate, with a view to extend his service period arrd claim back wages. The Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal and thc l{igh Court of C)rissa had ruled in his favor; however, the Hon'ble SuJrreme Court reversed these decisions. emphasizing the principle ol estoppel and the importance of consistency in employment records, by hold rng that applications for changing the date of birth must adhere to relevarrt provisions and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when rnade belatedly. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the employ<:c's claims were dismissed. Leamed Standing Counsel thcrefbre conten(ls that petitioner's claim for change of date of birth at a belated stage carrnot be entertained and therefore there is no illegality in thc irnpugned proccedings and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having cc,nsidered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner joined service on 06.02.1986 as a l"loating Badli Filter, a temporary post on piece-rate wages, and adnrinedly did n,rt submit any documentary proof of age at the time of' -ioining. Further, in his application dated 02.12.1985,he described hirnself as illiterate aged 26 vears, and his age was assessed by the Coltiery Medical Officer irs 25 years as on 01.01.1986, which was recorded in thc Initial Medical ['-xamination Report, Identity Card, Sen ice Card, and B- I /' / 7 wp _4129 _2077 N8K,.J Register, all of which were sigled/thumb-marked by the petitioner without any protest or objection. His subsequent claim that he was born on 14.06.1969 based on an SSC Certih$ate issued on 06.06.1986 by the Board of Secondary Education, Andha Pradesh, purportedly acquired after joining service, is contrary to the seftled position under JBCCI lmplementation Instruction No.76 datld 25.04.1988 and Circular No. P.4gl4702lIN1270 dated 01.08.1988, r,fhich prescribe that for illiterate employees or those without proof of age at the time of joining, the age determined by the Initial Medical Exanlination is final and binding. The petitioner's contention that he was in l0f class at the time of applying for employment and passed SSC'Examinatlon in March 1986 does not alter the fact that he declared himself as illiterate and joined service prior to submitting the SSC certificate, and he h4s not produced any documentary evidence to support his assertion of being in school during that period' Reliance placed on the certihcate dated:,25.11.2005 issued by Church of South India High School, Bellampalli, showing the same date ot'birth, does not advance the petitioner's case, {s it was procured much later and does not lulfill the legal requirement for proof of age under the applicable instructions. Further, the contention that Section 40( I ) of'the Mines Act, 1952 bars employment of minors unde4 l8 years is qualified b1'Scction 40(2), which permits employment of pprsons aged l6 and above under superv ision, but in this case, even such exemption is irrelevant as the petitioner's recorded and accepted age was 25 years at the tinre of'his entrv ln servlce. It may be noted that the petitioned did not raise any objection at the

8. relevant $me when his date of birth was recorded at the time olentering 8 wp_4329-2017 NBK,.J into service zrnd he accepted all service benefits, promotions, and retirement benefits on the basis of recorded date of birth. Furthermore, the Apex Medical Board, constituted in pursuance of the direction of this Court in W.t'.No.33343 of 2012 dated 31.03.2015, conducted an examination or 12.03.2016 and confirmed that the petitioner was above 55 years as on 29.08.20 16. The petitioner's allegation that only one doctor examined him in a closed room without conducting tests cannot be countenanced as it is the speclfic stand ofthe respondent, based on record, that a panel comprising an Occupational Health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophthalmologist, ENT Surgeon, and Orthopedic Surgeon conducted the examination in accordance with protocol. The petitioner's reprularization as General Mazdoor vide proceedings dated

11.09.1990, ell'ective from 01.09. 1990, is also based on the original recorded age and does not indicate any reyised age determination, and therefore the petitioner's contention that completion of 190 musters and issuance o[ N{edical Fitness Certificate by Superintendent of Area Hospital, God:l,ari Khani, dated l}.O2.lggl bearing date of birth as

14.06.1969 alters his legal age is devoid of merit, as such certificate cannot overridt: thc recorded and accepted date ofbirth at the time ofentry into employment \&'ith the respondent Company.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines (supra), by referring to Kurnatako Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v T.P.Natarajat ,roncurred with paragraph ll of the said judgment, by observing at paragraph 20 as lollows: | 12027) 12 SCC 21 9 wp_4329 _20L7 N8K,,' '11 . Considering the aforesaid decislo4rs of this Court the law on change of date of bitth can be gtmrhaized as under: (i) Application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable. (it) Even if there is cogent eviAenc[, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iit) Application can be rejected on tfe grouN of delay and laches also more pafticularly whhn it is made at the fag- end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of suryrannuation."

10. In that view of the m interfere with the impugned after, this Cotrt does not find any grounds ro proceedings dated 27 .l 1.201 6 confi rm ing the years as onlg.Og.ZOrc. petitioner's age as above 55 I l. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, ghall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ;;F 5"jft i,"& mff ftl itJ#J;r#}!:i# sf o ^ o, * o c o u N S E L

6. i To 1 2 3 SA GJP HIGH COL'RT DATED:2810512025 l ORDER WP.No.4329 ot 2017 ,>6 i 25 AUEM /i * Ar.' ?r' DISMISSINI3 THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. OZ